Intimate Relationships Chapter 3.pdf

CHAPTER 3 Attraction The Fundamental Basis of Attraction ♦ Proximity: Liking Those Near Us ♦ Physical Attractiveness: Liking Those Who Are Lovely ♦ Reciprocity: Liking Those Who Like Us ♦ Similarity: Liking Those Who Are Like...

CHAPTER 3 Attraction The Fundamental Basis of Attraction ♦ Proximity: Liking Those Near Us ♦ Physical Attractiveness: Liking Those Who Are Lovely ♦ Reciprocity: Liking Those Who Like Us ♦ Similarity: Liking Those Who Are Like Us ♦ So, What Do Men and Women Want? ♦ For Your Consideration ♦ Key Terms ♦ Chapter Summary ♦ Suggestions for Satisfaction ♦ References You’re alone in a classroom, beginning to read this chapter, when the door opens and a stranger walks in. Is this someone who appeals to you? Might you have just ­encountered a potential friend or lover? Remarkably, you probably developed a tenta­tive answer to those questions much more quickly than you were able to read this sentence (Palomares & Young, 2018). What’s going on? Where did your judgment come from? This chapter considers these issues. Psychologically, the first step toward a relationship is always the same: interpersonal attraction, the desire to approach someone. Feelings of attraction don’t guarantee that a relationship will develop, but they do open the door to the possibility. I’ll examine several major influences that shape our attraction to others, starting with a basic principle about how attraction works. THE FUNDAMENTAL BASIS OF ATTRACTION A longstanding assumption about interpersonal attraction is that we are attracted to oth- ers whose presence is rewarding to us (Clore & Byrne, 1974). And two different types of rewards influence attraction: noticeable direct rewards we obviously receive from our interaction with others, and more subtle indirect benefits of which we’re not always aware and that are merely associated with someone else. Direct rewards refer to all the evident pleasures people provide us. When they shower us with interest and approval, we’re usu- ally gratified by the attention and acceptance. When they are witty and beautiful, we enjoy their pleasing characteristics. And when they give us money or good advice, we are clearly better off. Most of the time, the more direct rewards that people provide us, the more attracted we are to them. But attraction also results from a variety of subtle influences that are only indirectly related to the obvious kindness, good looks, or pleasing personalities of those we meet (McNulty et al., 2017). For instance, anything about new acquaintances that resembles us, however tangentially, may make them seem more likable. Consider a fellow named Dennis who is fond of his name; because of the shared first letter, “it might not be too 87 far-fetched [for] Dennis to gravitate toward cities such as Denver, careers such as dentistry, and romantic partners such as Denise” (Pelham et al., 2005, p. 106). In fact, that’s what happens: People are disproportionately likely to fall in love with someone who has a name that resembles their own (Jones et al., 2004). Rewards like these are indirect and mild, and we sometimes don’t even consciously notice them—but they do illustrate just how diverse and varied the rewards that attract us to others can be. Indeed, most of us simply think that we’re attracted to someone if he or she is an appealing person, but it’s really more complex than that. Attraction does involve the perceived characteristics of the person who appeals to us, but it also depends on our current needs, goals, and desires, all of which can fluctuate over time and from one situation to the next. Given that, theorists Eli Finkel and Paul Eastwick (2015) asserted that the fundamental basis of attraction is ­instrumentality, the extent to which someone is able to help us achieve our present goals.1 Simply put, we’re attracted to others who can help us get what we currently want. An instrumentality perspective acknowledges that attraction can be idiosyncratic, differing from person to person according to one’s present goals, and changing over time as needs are fulfilled. But we’re most attracted, as you’d expect, to others whose company is consistently rewarding, those who routinely fulfill several chronic and important desires—such as those whose company is pleasurable and helpful and who fulfill our need to belong (Orehek et al., 2018).2 And as those desires are pervasive, some specific influences on attraction are rather ubiquitous, clearly influencing most people most of the time. We’ll consider them in this chapter, beginning our survey with one that’s more important than most of us think. PROXIMITY: LIKING THOSE NEAR US We might get to know someone online, but isn’t interaction more rewarding when we can hear others’ voices, see their smiles, and actually hold their hands? Most of the time, relationships are more rewarding when they involve people who are near one another (who are physically, as well as psychologically, close). Indeed, our physical proximity to others often determines whether or not we ever meet them in the first place. More often than not, our friendships and romances grow out of interactions with those who are nearby. In fact, there is a clear connection between physical proximity and interpersonal attraction, and a few feet can make a big difference. Think about your ­Relationships classroom: Who have you gotten to know since the semester started? Who is a new friend? It’s likely that the people you know and like best sit near you in class. When they are assigned seats in a classroom, college students are much more likely to become friends with those sitting near them than with those sitting across the room, even when the room is fairly small (Back et al., 2008). Indeed, when single men have a brief 1 This is the second time I’ve introduced the term “instrumentality,” which we used to describe traits such as assertiveness and self-reliance back on page 26. The idea remains the same. Our “instrumental” traits promote our own accomplishments and achievements, and as Finkel and Eastwick use the term, “instrumen- tality” describes the extent to which someone else can offer us help in accomplishing our present goals. 2 Remember? A really fundamental goal that characterizes the human race. See page 4.  6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 Source: Myers, D. G. (2008). Social psychology (9th ed.). McGraw-Hill. FIGURE 3.1. A student apartment building at MIT. In the study by Festinger et al. (1950), residents were randomly assigned to rooms in buildings like these. TABLE 3.1. Friendship Choices in Campus Housing at MIT Two hundred seventy people living in buildings like the one pictured in Figure 3.1 were asked to list their three closest companions. Among those living on the same floor of a given building, here’s how often the residents named someone living: 1 door away 41% of the time 2 doors away 22% 3 doors away 16% 4 doors away 10% Only 88 feet separated residents living four doors apart, at opposite ends of the same floor, but they were only one-quarter as likely to become friends as were people living in adjacent rooms. Similar patterns were obtained from one floor to the next, and from building to building in the housing complex, so it was clear that small distances played a large part in determining who would and who would not be friends. interaction with a moderately attractive woman, they like her better when she sits two- and-a-half feet away from them than when she sits five feet away (Shin et al., 2019). A similar phenomenon occurs in student housing complexes. In a classic study, Festinger, Schachter, and Back (1950) examined the friendships among ­students living in campus housing at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Residents were ran- domly assigned to rooms in 17 different buildings that were all like the one in Figure 3.1. People who lived close to each other were much more likely to become friends than were those whose rooms were further apart. Indeed, the chances that residents would become friends were closely related to the distances between their rooms (see Table 3.1). And the same result was also obtained from one building to the next: People were more likely to know and like residents of other buildings that were close to their own. Off campus, similar effects occur, and with real consequence. In another classic study, examination of 5,000 marriage licenses in Philadelphia revealed that almost half (48 percent) of the new spouses had lived within a mile of each other before they mar- ried, and, even more remarkably, in one of every eight marriages, they had lived in the same building (Bossard, 1932)! Obviously, even small distances have a much larger influ- ence on our relationships than most people realize. Whenever we choose the exact place where we will live or work or go to school, we also take a major step toward determining who the significant others in our lives are likely to be. Familiarity: Repeated Contact Why does proximity have such influence? For one thing, it increases the chances that two people will cross paths often and become more familiar with each other. Folk wisdom suggests that “familiarity breeds contempt,” but research evidence generally disagrees. Instead of being irritating, repeated contact with—or mere exposure to— someone usually increases our liking for him or her (Mrkva & Van Boven, 2020). Even if we have never talked to them, we tend to like people whose faces we recognize more than those whose faces are unfamiliar to us. Moreland and Beach (1992) provided an interesting example of the mere ­exposure effect when they had college women attend certain classes either 15 times, 10 times, or 5 times during a semester. These women never talked to anyone and simply sat there, but they were present in the room frequently, sometimes, or rarely. Then at the end of the semester, the real students were given pictures of the women and asked for their reactions. The results were very clear: The more familiar the women were, the more the students were attracted to them. And they were all liked better than women the students had never seen at all. (See Figure 3.2.) The proximity that occurs in college classrooms influences real relationships, too. An intriguing analysis of a whole year’s worth of the millions of e-mail messages passed among the tens of thousands of students at a large university—back before texting became commonplace—demonstrated that, among students who did not already share an acquaintance, taking a class together made it 140 times more likely that they would message each other (Kossinets & Watts, 2006). And as we’ve seen, small distances matter; students who are assigned seats next to each other are much FIGURE 3.2. The mere exposure effect in college classrooms. Even though they never interacted with anyone, other students liked women more the more often they visited a class. 5.0 4.5 Liking for the Women 4.0 3.5 3.0 0 5 10 15 Number of Visits to Class Source: Data from Moreland, R. L., & Beach, S. R. (1992). “Exposure effects in the classroom: The development of affinity among students,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 255–276. more likely to become friends than are those who are given seats a couple of rows apart (Segal, 1974).3 Of course, familiarity has it limits. As we gain information about others, we may find that they are obnoxious, disagreeable, or inept, and increasing exposure to such people may lead us to like them less, not more (Norton et al., 2013). Indeed, a study in a condominium complex in California (Ebbesen et al., 1976) found that although most of the residents’ friends lived nearby, most of their enemies did, too! Only rarely did people report that they really disliked someone who lived several buildings away from them. Instead, they despised fellow residents who were close enough to annoy them often—by playing music too loudly, letting their dogs bark, and so on. Proximity can also be disadvantageous when people who have come to know each other online—see the “Digital Distance” box on page 92—meet in person for the first time. People put their best foot (and face) forward when they’re writing personal pro- files and posting pictures, so what you see on the Web is not necessarily what you get when you finally meet someone face-to-face (Hall et al., 2010). In particular, men often claim that they’re taller and richer, and women claim that they’re lighter and younger, than they really are (“Online Dating Statistics,” 2017). They’ve also typically been careful and selective in describing their attitudes and tastes, so there’s still a lot to learn about them. Thus, on average, when people who have met online get together in person for the first time, they’re mildly disappointed; the knowledge they have about each other goes up, but their liking for each other goes down (Sharabi & Caughlin, 2017). When we find out who our online partners actually are—as opposed to who we thought they were—our attraction to them often declines (Ramirez et al., 2015). Proximity can also be surprisingly problematic when partners in long-distance rela- tionships are reunited after some time apart. When partners have to separate—for instance, when one of them is called to military service—“out of sight” does not inevitably lead to “out of mind.” A separation can destroy a relationship, particularly if the partners start dating other people who are close at hand (Sahlstein, 2006). But the more committed partners are to their relationship, the more they miss each other, and the more they miss each other, the harder they work to express their continued love and regard for each other across the miles (Le et al., 2011). Their conversations tend to be longer and more personal than those they would ordinarily have face-to-face, and they also tend to stay positive and steer clear of touchy topics (Rossetto, 2013). As a result, they’re likely to construct idealized images of their partnership that portray it as one that’s worth waiting for (Kelmer et al., 2013), and absence can indeed (at least temporarily) make the heart grow fonder (Jiang & Hancock, 2013). Unfortunately, reunions are often more stressful than people expect. When soldiers return home, for instance, the reunited lovers lose some of their autonomy and have to relearn how to comfortably depend on one another; they have to renegotiate their roles and rhythms, and confront the things (which they have often forgotten) that they didn’t like about each other (Knobloch & Wehrman, 2014). So perhaps it isn’t surprising that one-third of the long-distance dating ­partners— and remember, commitment is a key influence on all of this—who get back together break up within 3 months of their reunion (Stafford et al., 2006). 3 This effect is so striking, I keep thinking that I should insist that my own students change seats halfway through the semester and sit next to a whole new bunch of potential friends. They would probably leave the course knowing—and liking—more people. But, because they’d probably also be annoyed to move, I’ve never done it.  Digital Distance Where Almost Everybody Is Just a Click or Two Away Proximity matters, but we also have astound- don’t get any interest in return. What does ing reach to others online, where we can en- that mean? Have potential partners consid- counter potential mates that we’d never meet ered you closely and found you unworthy? any other way. “Today, if you own a smart- Or are they simply otherwise engaged and phone, you’re carrying a 24-7 singles bar in unaware of your interest? Either way, users your pocket” (Ansari, 2015, p. 31), and it’s can begin to doubt themselves, and Tinder now commonplace for romances to begin on- users tend to have lower levels of satisfac- line on dating apps or websites, or on social tion with their faces and bodies than non- media, in chat rooms, online communities, users do (Strubel & Petrie, 2017). For multiplayer games, and other online locales. another thing, there are fewer partners out Indeed, online encounters are now the most there than it may seem; in order to make common way couples get started. These days, their pages more impressive, dating web- more heterosexual couples meet online than sites may be slow to remove inactive pro- through introductions by friends, family, or files of ex-­subscribers who have left the coworkers (which used to be the way most service. By one estimate in 2010, only couples met; Rosenfeld et al., 2019), and this 7 percent of the profiles that were visible pattern is even more pronounced among on Match.com belonged to people who were LGBTQ folks, who are twice as likely as het- still seeking partners (Slater, 2013). And erosexuals to be in a committed relationship even when two people are in the same gen- with someone they met on a dating app or site eral area, they get a match on Tinder (with (Vogels, 2020). And when it comes to those both of them swiping right to express inter- sites, there’s something for everyone. Do you est in the other) less than 2 percent of the have a passion for pets? Download Dig, the time (Julian, 2018). Then, only 2 percent of “Dog Person’s Dating App.”4 Are you looking those who match ever actually meet each for another vegetarian? VeggieDate.org. A other face-to-face. (And then, a one-night sugar daddy? SugarDaddie.com. A hookup? stand of casual sex ensues in only one-third OnlineBootyCall.com, which used to feature of 1 percent of the matches people make the “Booty Call® Commandment” “Thou [Grøntvedt et al., 2020], or about once for shalt kiss anything except my mouth.” An ex- every 15,000 swipes to the right. Hookups tramarital affair? AshleyMadison.com in the do occur on Tinder, but not all that often.) United States, and IllicitEncounters.com in the Successful connections with others are United Kingdom. And of course, apps can scarcer than you might expect. show you interested others who just happen Moreover, the (apparent) ­abundance to be nearby; Tinder is for you if you’re hetero- of choices isn’t necessarily conducive to re- sexual, Grindr if you’re a gay man, and HER if lationship success. Overwhelmed by hun- you’re a lesbian, bisexual, or queer. dreds of profiles, people can become sloppy So, there’s amazing access to others and less exacting in their choices, homing online, and when we’re actively seeking oth- in, for instance, on particularly attractive ers, expectations are often high. But the people with whom they have little in com- outcomes people experience with dating mon (Bruch & Newman, 2018). Faced with apps and on dating sites can be disappoint- so many options, they may also become ing, for several reasons. For one thing, most more picky and choosy (Pronk & Denissen, users encounter a lot of ambiguous rejec- 2020) and less likely to commit to any one tion. They “swipe right” to like others but partner (Pronk & Denissen, 2020); most 4 I am not recommending any of these sites! Buyer beware. They’re just examples, and there are plenty more  users (53 ­percent) have dated more than In any case, one thing is certain: Tech- one person simultaneously (“Online Dating nology influences relationships, and there’s ­Statistics,” 2017). And finally, it’s unlikely no more dramatic example than the advent of that a dating site that offers to identify peo- online dating and mating. It introduces us to a ple who will be particularly perfect partners much larger variety of people than we would for their subscribers will be able to actually ever meet otherwise (Potarca, 2017), and it’s fulfill that promise; unique compatibility now common for us to encounter people on- is so complex, it’s almost impossible to line, research their backgrounds, and then predict before two people have actually met chat from a distance, often for some time, (Joel et al., 2017). before we actually meet (LeFebvre, 2018). So, the effects of familiarity depend both on what we learn about someone else and on the amount of interdependence we are forced to share. It is certainly ­possible to reach a point of saturation at which additional time with, and more information about, other people begins to reduce our liking for them (Montoya et al., 2017). But in general, when people first meet, we prefer others we recognize to those who are total strangers (Van Dessel et al., 2019)—and one reason proximity is usually profitable is that it increases the chances that others will be recognizable to us. Convenience: Proximity Is Rewarding and Distance Is Costly Another reason why proximity promotes most partnerships is that when others are nearby, it’s easy to enjoy whatever rewards they offer. Everything else being equal, a partner who is nearby has a big advantage over one who is far away: The expense and effort of getting to a distant partner—such as expensive airfares or hours on the road— make a distant relationship more costly overall than one that is closer to home. Distant relationships are less rewarding, too; an expression of love over a video feed is less delightful than an actual soft kiss on the lips. The only notable thing about this is that anyone should find it surprising. However, lovers who have to endure a period of separation may blithely believe, because their relationship has been so rewarding up to that point, that some time apart will not adversely affect their romance. If so, they may be surprised by the difference distance makes. When a relationship that enjoys the convenience of proximity becomes incon- venient due to distance, it may suffer more than either partner expects. Lovers who are deeply committed to their relationship often survive a separation (Kelmer et al., 2013), but other partnerships may ultimately be doomed by distance (Sahlstein, 2006). The Power of Proximity The bottom line is that proximity makes it more likely that two people will meet and interact. What follows depends on the people involved, of course, but the good news is that most of the time, when two strangers begin chatting, they like each other more the more they chat (Reis et al., 2011). This does not occur with everyone we meet (Norton et al., 2013), and over time, constant contact with someone also carries the possibility that unre- warding monotony will set in (Montoya et al., 2017). Nevertheless, when we come to know others and our goal is simply to get along and to have a good time, familiarity and conve- nience increase our attraction to them. And that’s the power of proximity.  PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS: LIKING THOSE WHO ARE LOVELY After proximity brings people together, what’s the first thing we’re likely to notice about those we meet? Their looks, of course. And, although we all know that we shouldn’t “judge books by their covers,” looks count. Physical attractiveness greatly influences the first impressions that people form of one another. In general, right or wrong, we tend to assume that good-looking people are more likable, better people than those who are unattractive. Our Bias for Beauty: “What Is Beautiful Is Good” Imagine that you’re given a photograph of a stranger’s face and, using only the photo, are asked to guess at the personality and prospects the person possesses. Studies of judgments such as these routinely find that physically attractive people are presumed to be interesting, sociable people who are likely to encounter personal and professional success in love and life (see Table 3.2). In general, we seem to think that what is beautiful is good; we assume that attractive people—especially those who share our own ethnic background (Agthe et al., 2016)—have desirable traits such as agreeableness, extraversion, and conscientiousness that complement their desirable appearances (Segal-Caspi et al., 2012). And we seem to make these judgments automatically, with- out any conscious thought; a beautiful face triggers a positive evaluation the instant we see it (Olson & Marshuetz, 2005). We don’t expect good-looking strangers to be wonderful in every respect; the more attractive they are, the more promiscuous we think them to be (Brewer & Archer, 2007). (Is this just wishful thinking? It may be. One reason that we like to think that pretty people are outgoing and kind is because we’re attracted to them, and we want them to like us in return [Lemay et al., 2010]. Hope springs eternal.) Still, there’s no TABLE 3.2. What Is Beautiful Is Good Both male and female research participants judged that physically attractive people were more likely than unattractive people to be: Kind Interesting Strong Poised Outgoing Sociable Nurturant Exciting date Sensitive Good character Sexually warm and responsive These same judges also believed that, compared to those who were unattractive, physically attractive people would have futures that involved More prestige Happier marriages More social and professional success More fulfilling lives Source: Dion, K. K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). “What is beautiful is good.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 285–290. question that attractive people make better overall impressions on us than less attractive people do, and this tends to be true all over the world (Wheeler & Kim, 1997). The bias for beauty may also lead us to confuse beauty with talent. In the work- place, physically attractive people make more money and are promoted more often than are those with average looks. On average, good-looking folks earn $230,000 more during their lifetimes than less lovely people do (Hamermesh, 2013). On campus, attractive professors get better teaching evaluations than unattractive instructors do, and students attend their classes more frequently (Wolbring & Riordan, 2016). The more attractive U.S. politicians are, the more competent they are judged to be (Olivola & Todorov, 2010). Attractive people even make better impressions in court; good-looking culprits convicted of misdemeanors in Texas get lower fines than they would have received had they been less attractive (Downs & Lyons, 1991). But are the interactions and relationships of beautiful people really any different from those of people who are less pretty? I’ll address that question shortly. First, though, we need to assess whether we all tend to agree on who is pretty and who is not. Who’s Pretty? Consider this: On the first day of a college class, researchers invite you to join a circle that, including you, contains four men and four women. All of the others are strangers. Your task is to take a close look at each person and to rate (secretly!) his or her physical attractiveness while they all judge you in return. What would you expect? Would all four members of the other sex in your group agree about how attractive you are? Would you and the other three people of the same sex give each of the four oth- ers exactly the same rating? David Marcus and I did a study just like this to determine the extent to which beauty is in the “eye of the beholder” (Marcus & Miller, 2003). We did find some mild disagreement among the observers that presumably resulted from individual tastes. Judgments of beauty were somewhat idiosyncratic—but not much. The take-home story of our study was the overwhelming consensus among people about the physical beauty of the strangers they encountered. Our participants clearly shared the same notions of who is and who isn’t pretty. Moreover, this consensus exists across ethnic groups: Asians, ­Hispanics, and Black and white Americans all tend to agree with each other about the attractive- ness of women from all four groups (Cunningham et al., 1995). Even more striking is the finding that newborn infants exhibit preferences for faces like those that adults find attractive, too (Slater et al., 2000); when they are much too young to be affected by social norms, babies spend more time gazing at attractive than unat- tractive faces. What faces are those? There’s little doubt that women are more attractive if they have “baby-faced” features such as large eyes, a small nose, a small chin, and full lips (Jones, 1995). The point is not to look childish, however, but to appear feminine and youthful; beautiful women combine those baby-faced features with signs of maturity such as prominent cheekbones, narrow cheeks, and a broad smile (Cunningham et al., 2002). Long eyelashes are lovely, too (Adam, 2021), and women who present all these features are thought to be attractive all over the world (Jones, 1995).  Male attractiveness is more complex. Men who have strong jaws and broad foreheads—who look strong and dominant—are usually thought to be handsome (Rhodes, 2006). (Envision George Clooney.) On the other hand, when average male faces are made slightly more feminine and baby-faced through computer imaging, the “feminized” faces—which look warm and friendly—are attractive, too. (­Envision Tobey Maguire.) Remarkably, which facial style is more attractive to women seems to be influenced both by their average levels of the sex hormone progesterone during their menstrual cycles and whether or not they currently have romantic partners: If they’re single, they find rugged, manly features to be more attractive, the more progesterone they have—but if they’re already partnered, higher levels of progesterone are associated with lower prefer- ence for the masculine features (DeBruine et al., 2019). In any case, good-looking faces in both sexes have features that are neither too large nor too small. Indeed, they are quite average. If you use computer ­imaging soft- ware to create composite images that combine the features of individual faces, the average faces that result are more attractive than nearly all of the faces that make up the composite (Little, 2015). This is true not only in the United States but also in China, Nigeria, India, and Japan (Rhodes et al., 2002). (For a delightful set of exam- ples from Germany, go to “‘BeautyCheck’ homepage!” with your search engine.) However, this doesn’t mean that gorgeous people have bland, ordinary looks. The images that result from this averaging process are actually rather unusual. Their features are all proportional to one another; no nose is too big, and no eyes are too small, and there is nothing about such faces that is exaggerated, underdeveloped, or odd. Averaged faces are also symmetrical with the two sides of the face being mirror images of one another; the eyes are the same size, the cheeks are the same width, and so on. Facial symmetry is attractive in its own right, whether or not a face is “average” (Fink et al., Which of these two faces is more appealing to you? They are composite images of the same face that have been altered to include feminine or masculine facial features, and if you’re a woman, your answer may depend on your average levels of progesterone and whether or not you’re in a romantic relationship. Single women with lots of progesterone tend to find the more masculine face on the right to be more attractive, but when women have partners, higher levels of progester- one predict higher interest in the more feminine face on the left. I’ll have more to say about phe- nomena like this a few pages from now. Picture A is a 50 percent feminized male composite; B is a 50 percent masculinized male composite. A B Anthony Little 2006). In fact, if you take a close look at identical twins, whose faces are very similar, you’ll ­probably think that the twin with the more symmetric face is the more attractive of the two (Lee et al., 2016). Both symmetry and “averageness” make their own contribution to facial beauty, so beautiful faces combine the best features of individual faces in a bal- anced, well-proportioned whole. Of course, some bodies are more attractive than others, too. Men find women’s shapes most alluring when they are of normal weight, neither too heavy nor too thin, and their waists are noticeably narrower than their hips (Lassek & Gaulin, 2016). The most attractive waist-to-hip ratio, or WHR, is a curvy 0.7 in which the waist is 30 percent smaller than the hips (see ­Figure 3.3); this “hourglass” shape appeals to men around the world (Valentova et al., 2017).5 In the Czech Republic, for instance, the slimmer a woman’s waist is, the more often she and her man have sex and the better his erectile function is (Brody & Weiss, 2013). This appears to be a fundamental preference, too; even men who have been blind from birth prefer a low WHR in women’s bodies when they assess their shapes by touch (Karremans et al., 2010). (And if you’re still not convinced, this should do it: The princesses in animated Disney movies have lower WHRs than the female villains do [Aung & Williams, 2019].) Women who are over- weight are usually judged to be less attractive than slender and normal-weight women are (Faries & Bartholomew, 2012), and marriages are more satisfying to both spouses, on ­average, when wives are thinner than their husbands (Meltzer et al., 2011); neverthe- less, thin women are not more attractive to men than women of normal weight are Look what happens when 2, 8, or 32 real faces are morphed together into composite images. When more faces are combined, the resulting image portrays a face that is not odd or idiosyn- cratic in any way and that has features and dimensions that are more and more typical of the human race. The result is a more attractive image. Averaged faces are attractive faces. a. 2-Face Composite b. 8-Face Composite c. 32-Face Composite Judith Langlois/Langlois Social Development Lab 5 If you want to measure your own WHR, find the circumference of your waist at its narrowest point and divide that figure by the circumference of your hips at their broadest point, including your buttocks. Your butt is included in your “waist-to-hip” ratio.  Krzysztof Kościński FIGURE 3.3. Waist-to-hip ratios. These figures portray the range of different waist-to-hip ratios that are typically found in young women. When men study a variety of images that present all of the possible WHRs from 0.6 to 0.85, they find an average WHR of 0.7 to be most attractive. (Swami et al., 2007). Around the world, men like medium-sized breasts more than small breasts (Havlíček et al., 2017), but even larger breasts do not make a woman any more attractive (Kościński et al., 2020). In any case, breast size is less important than their proportion to the rest of a woman’s body; a curvy 0.75 waist-to-bust ratio is very appeal- ing (­Voracek & Fisher, 2006). In addition, a woman’s WHR has more influence on men’s judgments of her attractiveness than her breast size does (Dixson et al., 2011).6 Once again, male attractiveness is more complex. Men’s bodies are most attractive when their waists are only slightly narrower than their hips, with a WHR of 0.9. Broad shoulders and muscles are also attractive; men with higher shoulder-to-hip ratios (around 1.2) and bigger muscles have sex with more women and at earlier ages than do men who have narrower shoulders (Hughes & Gallup, 2003) or smaller muscles (Lassek & Gaulin, 2009)—and this, too, is true around the world (Frederick et al., 2011). However, a nice shape doesn’t attract a woman to a man unless he has other resources as well; a man’s WHR affects women’s evaluations of him only when he earns a healthy salary (Singh, 1995). A man is not all that attractive to women if he is handsome but poor. Judgments of physical attractiveness are evidently multifaceted, and several other characteristics also influence those perceptions. Both men and women tend to prefer heterosexual partnerships in which he is taller than she is (Stulp et al., 2013), but height matters more to women than to men (Yancey & Emerson, 2016). So, tall men get more responses from women to their online profiles than short men do. A guy who’s short—say, 5’ 4”—can get as many responses on a dating web- site as a fellow who’s much taller—say, 6’ 1”—but only if he earns more money. A lot more. In this particular case, the shorter man would have to earn $221,000 more each year to be as interesting to women (Hitsch et al., 2010). 6 I can also report that when men get 5 seconds to inspect full-body frontal images of naked women, the first things they look at are the breasts and waist (Garza et al., 2016). The face comes later. (But if you’re a woman, you already knew that.)  A potential partner’s smell also matters more to women than to men (Herz & Inzlicht, 2002), and remarkably, they prefer the smells of guys who have been eating a healthy diet full of fruits and vegetables to the smells of guys who’ve been consuming a lot of carbohydrates (Zuniga et al., 2017). But men are sensitive to smell, too, prefer- ring the natural scents of pretty women to those of women who are less attractive (Thornhill et al., 2003). In a typical study of this sort, people shower using unscented soap before they go to bed and then sleep in the same T-shirt for several nights. Then, research participants who have never met those people take a big whiff of those shirts and select the scents that are most appealing to them. Symmetrical, attractive people evidently smell better than asymmetrical, less attractive people do, because strangers prefer the aromas of attractive people to the smells of those who are more plain (Thornhill et al., 2003). What’s more, heterosexual men don’t much like the smell of gay men, who have aromas that are more attractive to other gay guys than to straight men (Martins et al., 2005). I am not making this up, so there are evidently subtle influences at work here. Finally, women also like smart guys (which should be good news for most of the men reading this book) (Karbowski et al., 2016). In one intriguing study, researchers gave men intelligence tests and then filmed them throwing a Frisbee, reading news headlines aloud, and pondering the possibility of life on Mars. When women watched the videos, the smarter the men were, the more appealing they were (Prokosch et al., 2009). This may be one reason that, when they are trying to impress a woman, men use a more elaborate vocabulary—that is, bigger words—than they do in ordinary dis- course (Rosenberg & Tunney, 2008). An Evolutionary Perspective on Physical Attractiveness I’ve just mentioned a lot of details, so you may not have noticed, but people’s prefer- ences for prettiness generally fit the assumptions of an evolutionary ­perspective. Con- sider these patterns: Cultures differ in several respects, but people all over the world still tend to agree on who is and who is not attractive (Cunningham et al., 1995; Jones, 1995). That’s one reason why the winners of international beauty pageants are usually gorgeous no matter where they’re from. Babies are born with preferences for the same faces that adults find attractive (Slater et al., 2000). Some reactions to good looks may be inherited. People with attractive symmetrical faces also tend to have symmetrical bodies and to enjoy better mental and physical health—and therefore make better mates—than do people with asymmetrical faces (Nedelec & Beaver, 2014; ­Perilloux et al., 2010). Sym- metric people of both sexes are smarter (Luxen & Buunk, 2006) and get sick less often (Van Dongen & ­Gangestad, 2011) than do those whose faces and bodies have odd proportions. Women with WHRs near the attractive norm of 0.7 are usually young and are not already pregnant (Lassek & Gaulin, 2019), so they look like they’d be good mates (Bovet, 2019). They also tend to enjoy better physical health than do women with fewer curves (Jasien´ska et al., 2004). A man with an attractive WHR of 0.9 is also likely to be in better health than another man with a plump belly (Payne, 2006).  So, both sexes are most attracted to the physical shapes that signal the highest likelihood of good health in the other sex (Singh & Singh, 2011). Everybody likes good looks, but physical attractiveness matters most to people who live in equatorial regions of the world where there are many parasites and pathogens that can endanger good health (Gangestad & Buss, 1993). In such areas, unblemished beauty may be an especially good sign that someone is in better health—and will make a better mate—than someone whose face is in some way imperfect. Ultimately, all things considered, attractive people in the United States reproduce more successfully—they have more children—than do those who are less attractive (Jokela, 2009). There are subtle but provocative changes in women’s desires that accompany their monthly menstrual cycles. Women are only fertile for the few days that precede their ovulation each month (see ­Figure 3.4), and during that period, they experi- ence increases in sexual desire both for their current partners and for other men (Arslan et al., 2020). They generally find men’s bodies to be more attractive (Jünger et al., 2018), and they are better able to judge whether a guy is gay or straight (Rule et al., 2011). These cyclic changes do not occur if women are taking birth control pills (and therefore are not ovulating) (Alvergne & Lummaa, 2010). FIGURE 3.4. Women’s probability of conception during the menstrual cycle. Women are fertile during the few days just before they ovulate at the end of the follicular phase of their menstrual cycles. During that period, they experience more sexual desire, for both their partners and for others, than they do during the rest of the month. 50 Follicular Phase Luteal Phase 40 Probability of Conception (x100) 30 20 10 0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 Day in Cycle Source: Jöchle, W. (1973). “Coitus-induced ovulation,” Contraception, 7, 523–564.  For their part, men think women smell better when they’re about to ovulate than at other times A Point to Ponder of the month (Gildersleeve et al., 2012). Smelling Are you intrigued or are you the T-shirts of such women causes men to experi- annoyed by an evolutionary ence a surge of testosterone (Miller & Maner, perspective on physical attrac- 2010) and to start thinking sexy thoughts (Miller & tiveness? Why? Maner, 2011). When women are fertile, their voices (Ostrander et al., 2018) and bodies (Grillot et al., 2014) are more attractive to men, too. All in all, it seems pretty clear that in subtle but real ways—and without necessarily being aware of it—men can tell there’s something slightly different and desirable about a woman when she’s about to ovulate (Haselton & Gildersleeve, 2016).7 These patterns convince some theorists that our standards of physical beauty have an evolutionary basis (Eastwick & Tidwell, 2013). Presumably, early humans who successfully sought fertile, robust, and healthy mates were more likely to reproduce successfully than were those who simply mated at random. As a result, the common preferences of modern men for symmetrical, low-WHR partners and of modern (fertile) women for symmetrical, masculine men may be evolved incli- nations that are rooted more in their human natures than in their particular cultural heritage. Culture Counts, Too Nevertheless, there’s no doubt that standards of attractiveness are also affected by changing economic and cultural conditions. Have you seen those Renaissance paintings of women who look fat by modern standards? During hard times, when a culture’s food supply is unreliable and people are hungry, slender women are actually less desirable than heavy women are (Nelson & Morrison, 2005). Around the world, only during times of plenty are slender women considered to be attrac- tive (Swami et al., 2010). Indeed, as economic prosperity spread through the United States during the twentieth century, women were expected to be slimmer and slimmer so that, back when they were popular, the average Playboy Playmate was so slender she met the weight criterion for having an eating disorder (Owen & Laurel-Seller, 2000). Norms can differ across ethnic groups as well (influenced in part, perhaps, by different patterns of economic well-being). Black and Latina women in the United States are more accepting of some extra weight than white women are, and indeed, 7 Once again, and as always, I am not making any of this up. More importantly, aren’t these findings remark- able? Keep in mind that if a woman is changing the normal ebb and flow of her hormones by taking birth control pills, none of this happens (Alvergne & Lummaa, 2010). But when women are cycling normally, these patterns support the possibility that estrous cycles exist in humans just as they do in other animals. The actual frequency with which heterosexual women have sex with their men does not fluctuate with ovula- tion (Grebe et al., 2013), so such cycles are more subtle in humans, to be sure—but they may exist nonetheless (Gangestad & Haselton, 2015). Black and Latino men like heavier women than white men do (Glasser et al., 2009). (But watch out: They still prefer the same curvaceous 0.7 WHR that is universally appealing to men [Singh & Luis, 1995]. In fact, even those Renaissance paintings depicted women with 0.7 WHRs.) Collectively, these findings suggest that human nature and environmental condi- tions work together to shape our judgments of who is and who isn’t pretty (Eastwick, 2013). We’re usually attracted to people who appear to be good mates, but what looks good depends somewhat on the conditions we inhabit. Still, beauty is not just in the eye of the beholder. There is remarkable agreement about who’s gorgeous and who’s ugly around the world. Looks Matter When a stranger walks into the room, you’ll know with a glance how attractive he or she is (Palomares & Young, 2018). Does that matter? Indeed, it does. During speed dates—in which people meet a variety of potential partners and get a chance to exchange any information they want—the biggest influence on their liking for others is outward appearance. “Participants are given 3 minutes in which to make their judgments, but they could mostly be made in 3 seconds” (­Kurzban & Weeden, 2005, p. 240). Men are attracted to women who are slender, young, and physically attractive, and women are attracted to men who are tall, young, and physically attractive. Of all the things people could learn about each other in a few minutes of conversation, the one that matters most is physical attractiveness (Li et al., 2013). Take someone’s Big 5 personality traits, attachment style, political attitudes, and other values and interests into account, and the best predictor of interest in him or her after a brief first meeting remains physical attractiveness. As you’d expect, friendly, outgoing people tend to be well liked, and nobody much likes people who are shy or high in anxiety about abandonment (McClure & Lydon, 2014), but noth- ing else about someone is as important at first meeting as his or her looks (Olderbak et al., 2017). Of course, speed-dating events can be a bit hectic—have you ever introduced yourself to 25 different potential partners in a busy hour and a half?—and when they ponder the question, men all over the world report higher interest in having a phys- ically attractive romantic partner than women do (Walter et al., 2020; see ­Figure 3.5). This is true of gays and lesbians, too (Ha et al., 2012). And indeed, 4 years into a marriage, a A Point to Ponder man’s satisfaction is correlated with his spouse’s attrac- Modern culture is full of im- tiveness, but a woman’s contentment is unrelated to her ages of tall, slender, shapely partner’s looks (Meltzer et al., 2014). Women know women and tall, muscular, that men are judging them by their looks, which may handsome men. How are be why 87 percent of the cosmetic ­surgery performed these idealized images of in the United States in 2018 was done on women the two sexes subtly influ- (American Society of Plastic Surgeons, 2019). encing your real-life But remember, despite the different emphasis men relationships? and women (say they) put on good looks, physical  Indispensable 3.0 Men Women 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0.5 Unimportant 0 Bulgaria Nigeria Indonesia West USA Germany FIGURE 3.5. Desire for physical attractiveness in a romantic partner. Around the world, according to their self-reports, men care about a partner’s looks more than women do. Source: Data from Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). “Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating,” Psychological Review, 100, 204–232. attractiveness influences both sexes when people get together (Eastwick et al., 2014), and on online dating sites, women are just as likely as men to want to see a photo of a potential partner (Vogels, 2020). Looks matter. They’re the most potent influence on how much any two people will initially like each other. The Interactive Costs and Benefits of Beauty So, what effects do our looks have on our interactions with others? Notably, despite men’s interest in women’s looks, there is actually no correlation overall between a woman’s beauty and the amount of time she spends interacting with men (Reis et al., 1982). Attractive women get more dates, but plain women spend plenty of time inter- acting with men in group settings where others are present. In contrast, men’s looks are correlated with the number and length of the interactions they have with women. Unattractive men have fewer interactions of any sort with fewer women than good- looking guys do. In this sense, then, physical attractiveness has a bigger effect on the social lives of men than it does on women. Being more popular, attractive people tend to be less lonely, more socially skilled, and a little happier than the rest of us (Feingold, 1992), and they’re able to have sex with a wider variety of people if they want (Weeden & Sabini, 2007). Physical attractiveness may even account for as much as 10 percent of the variability in people’s adjustment and well-being over their lifetimes (Burns & Farina, 1992). But being attractive has disadvan- tages, too. For one thing, perhaps because they’re so highly sought (even when they’re already in a relationship), the marriages of gorgeous people are less stable than those of the rest of us; they divorce more often than plain people do (Ma-Kellams et al., 2017). Others lie to pretty people more often, too. People are more willing to misrepresent their interests, personalities, and incomes to get close to an attractive person than they are to fabricate an image for a plain partner (Rowatt et al., 1999). As a result, realizing that others are often “brown-nosing,” or trying to ingratiate themselves, gorgeous people may cautiously begin mistrusting or discounting some of the praise they receive from others.  Consider this clever study: Attractive or unattractive people receive a written eval- uation of their work from a person of the other sex who either does or does not know what they look like (Major et al., 1984). In every case, each participant receives a flattering, complimentary evaluation. (Indeed, everyone gets exactly the same praise.) How did the recipients react to this good news? Attractive men and women trusted the praise more and assumed that it was more sincere when it came from someone who didn’t know they were good-looking. They were evidently used to getting insincere compliments from people who were impressed by their looks. On the other hand, unat- tractive people found the praise more compelling when the evaluator did know they were plain; sadly, they probably weren’t used to compliments from people who were aware of their unappealing ­appearances. So, gorgeous people are used to pleasant interactions with others, but they tend not to trust other people as much as less attractive people do (Reis et al., 1982). In particular, others’ praise may be ambiguous. If you’re very attractive, you may never be sure whether people are complimenting you because they respect your abilities or because they like your looks. Matching in Physical Attractiveness I’ve spent several pages discussing physical attractiveness—which is an indication of its importance—but there is one last point to make about its influence at the begin- ning of a relationship. We all may want gorgeous partners, but we’re likely to end up paired off with others who are only about as attractive as we are (Hitsch et al., 2010). Partners in established romantic relationships tend to have similar levels of physical attractiveness; that is, their looks are well matched, and this pattern is known as matching. The more serious and committed a relationship becomes, the more obvious match- ing usually is. People may pursue others who are better-looking than they—on dating sites, they’ll often pursue others who are about 25 percent more desirable than they are (Bruch & Newman, 2018)—but they are unlikely to go steady with, or become engaged to, someone who is “out of their league” (Taylor et al., 2011). What this means is that, even if everybody wants a physically attractive partner, only those who are also good-looking are likely to get them. None of the really good-looking people want to pair off with us folks of average looks, and we, in turn, don’t want partners who are “beneath us,” either (Lee et al., 2008). Thus, it’s not very romantic, but similarity in physical attractiveness seems to operate as a screening device. If people generally value good looks, matching will occur as they settle for the best-looking partner who will have them in return (Montoya, 2008). There is, however, a heartwarming exception to this rule: Matching is less obvious—and mismatches in attractiveness are more likely to occur—in partners who were platonic friends before a romance developed between them (Hunt et al., 2015). Evidently, matching matters less if people grow close before the issue of relative attrac- tiveness rears its ugly head (so to speak). Husbands and wives do tend to be noticeably similar in physical attractiveness (Little et al., 2006), and some relationships never get started because the two people don’t look enough alike (van Straaten et al., 2009)—but that needn’t always be the case.  RECIPROCITY: LIKING THOSE WHO LIKE US The matching phenomenon suggests that, to enjoy the most success in the relationship marketplace, we should pursue partners who are likely to return our interest—and in fact, most people do just that. When we ponder possible partners, most of us rate our realistic interest in others—and the likelihood that we will approach them and try to start a relationship—using a formula like this (Shanteau & Nagy, 1979): A Potential His/Her His/Her Probability = × Partner’s Desirability Physical Attractiveness of Accepting You Everything else being equal, the better-looking people are, the more desirable they are. However, this formula suggests that people’s physical attractiveness is mul- tiplied by our judgments of how likely it is that they will like us in return to determine their overall appeal. Do the math. If someone likes us a lot but is rather ugly, that person probably won’t be our first choice for a date. If someone else is gorgeous but doesn’t like us back, we won’t waste our time. The most appealing potential partner is often someone who is moderately attractive and who seems to offer a reasonably good chance of accepting us (perhaps because he or she isn’t gorgeous) (Montoya & Horton, 2014). Our expectations regarding the probability of others’ acceptance have much to do with our mate value, or overall attractiveness as a reproductive partner. People with high mate values are highly sought by others, and as a result, they’re able to insist on partners of high quality. And they do (Arnocky, 2018). For instance, women who are very good-looking have very high standards in men; they don’t just want a kind man who would be a good father, or a sexy man who has good economic prospects; they want all of those desirable characteristics in their partners (Buss & Shackelford, 2008). If their mate values are high enough, they might be able to attract such perfect partners (Conroy-Beam & Buss, 2016)—but if they’re overestimating their desirability and over- reaching, they’re likely to remain frustrated (Bredow, 2015). In general, our histories of acceptance and rejection from others have taught us what to expect when we approach new potential partners (Charlot et al., 2020). Com- pared to the rest of us, for instance, people who are shy (Wenzel & Emerson, 2009) or who have low self-esteem (Bale & Archer, 2013) nervously expect more rejection from others, so they pursue less desirable partners. But it’s common to be cautious when we are unsure of others’ acceptance. A clever demonstration of this point emerged from a study in which college men had to choose where to sit to watch a movie (Bernstein et al., 1983). They had two choices: squeeze into a small cubicle next to a very attractive woman, or sit in an adjacent cubicle—alone—where there was plenty of room. The key point is that some of the men believed that the same movie was playing on both monitors, whereas other men believed that different movies were show- ing on the two screens. Let’s consider the guys’ dilemma. Presumably, most of them wanted to become acquainted with the beautiful woman. However, when only one movie was available, squeezing in next to her entailed some risk of rejection; their intentions would be obvious, and there was some chance that the woman would tell them to “back off.” However, when two different movies were available, they were on  What’s a Good Opening Line? You’re shopping for groceries, and you keep lines much less than the other two types crossing paths with an attractive person who (Kleinke & Dean, 1990). More importantly, smiles at you warmly when your eyes meet. when a guy actually uses one of these lines on You’d like to meet him or her. What should a woman in a singles bar, the innocuous and you say? You need to do more than just say, direct openers get a favorable response 70 per- “Hi,” and wait for a response, don’t you? Per- cent of the time compared to a success rate of haps some clever food-related witticism is the only 24 percent for the cute lines (Cunning- way to go: “Is your dad a baker? You’ve sure ham, 1989). A line that is sexually forward got a nice set of buns.” (such as “I may not be Fred Flintstone, but I Common sense suggests that such at- bet I can make your bed rock”) usually does tempts at humor are good opening lines. In- even worse (Cooper et al., 2007). There’s no deed, the Web is full of sites with lists of comparison: Simply saying hello is a much funny pickup lines that are supposed to make smarter strategy than trying to be cute or for- a good impression. Be careful, though; seri- ward (Weber et al., 2010). ous research has compared the effectiveness Why, then, do people create long lists of of various types of opening lines, and a cute flippant pickup lines? Because they’re men. or flippant remark may be among the worst When a woman uses a cute line on a man in a things to say. singles bar, it usually works—but that’s because Let’s distinguish cute lines from innocu- any opening line from a woman works well with ous openers (such as just saying, “Hi” or a man. But the approach men like best is for a “How’re you doing?”) and direct lines that woman to honestly announce her interest with honestly communicate your interest (such as a direct approach (such as “Want to have a “Hi, I’d like to get to know you”). When drink together?”) (Fisher et al., 2020). Whether women e­valuate lines like these by watching you’re a man or woman, if you’d like to get to tapes of men who use them, they like the cute know someone, the best thing to do is to say so. safer ground. Sitting next to the woman could mean that they just wanted to see that particular movie, and a rebuff from her would be rude. In fact, only 25 percent of the men dared to sit next to the woman when the same movie was on both monitors, but 75 percent did so when two movies were available and their intentions were more ambiguous. Moreover, we can be sure that the men were taking advantage of the uncertain situation to move in on the woman—instead of really wanting to see that particular movie—because the experimenters kept changing which movie played on which screen. Three-fourths of the men squeezed in with the gorgeous woman no mat- ter which movie was playing there! In general, then, people seem to take heed of the likelihood that they will be accepted and liked by others, and they are more likely to approach those who offer acceptance than rejection. Our judgments of our mate values can vary from one rela- tionship to another, as we assess our compatibility—and appeal—to ­particular partners (Eastwick & Hunt, 2014). But the best acceptance usually comes from potential part- ners who are selective and choosy and who don’t offer ­acceptance to everyone. In speed-dating situations, for example, people who are eager to go out with everyone they meet are liked less by others—and make fewer matches—than those who are more discriminating; people who say “yes” to everybody get few “yesses” in return, whereas those who record interest in only a select few are more enticing to those they pick (Eastwick et al., 2007). These results jive nicely, by the way, with classic studies of what happens when people play “hard to get.” Because people like to be liked, pretend- ing to be aloof and only mildly interested in someone is a dumb way to try to attract him or her. Playing hard to get doesn’t work. What does work is being selectively hard to get—that is, being a difficult catch for everyone but the person you’re trying to attract (Walster et al., 1973). Those who can afford to say “no” to most people but who are happy to say “yes” to us are the most alluring potential partners of all. Still, everything else being equal, it’s hard not to like those who like us (Birnbaum et al., 2018). Imagine that the first thing you hear about a new transfer student is that he or she has noticed you and really likes you; don’t you feel positively toward him or her in return? Liking and acceptance from others is powerfully rewarding, and we’re attracted to those who provide it. SIMILARITY: LIKING THOSE WHO ARE LIKE US So, it’s rewarding to meet people who like us. It’s also enjoyable to find others who are just like us and who share the same background, interests, and tastes. Indeed, when it comes to our attitudes, age, race (and, to some degree, our personalities), the old cliché that “birds of a feather flock together” is absolutely correct (Bahns et al., 2017; Hampton et al., 2019). Like attracts like. Consider these classic examples: At the University of Michigan, previously unacquainted men were given free rooms in a boardinghouse in exchange for their participation in a study of developing friendships (Newcomb, 1961). At the end of the semester, the men’s closest friend- ships were with those housemates with whom they had the most in common. At the University of Texas, researchers intentionally created blind dates between men and women who held either similar social and political attitudes or dissimilar views (Byrne et al., 1970). Each couple spent 30 minutes at the student union getting to know each other over soft drinks. After the “dates,” similar couples liked each other more than dissimilar couples did. At Kansas State University, 13 men spent 10 days jammed together in a simulated fallout shelter, and their feelings about each other were assessed along the way (Griffitt & Veitch, 1974). The men got along fine with those with whom they had a lot in common, but would have thrown out of the shelter, if they could, those who were the least similar to themselves. As these examples suggest, similarity is attractive. What Kind of Similarity? But what kinds of similarities are we talking about? Well, lots. Whether they are lovers or friends, happy relationship partners resemble each other more than random strang- ers do in several ways. First, there’s demographic similarity in age, sex, race, education, religion, and social class (Hitsch et al., 2010). Most of your best friends in high school were probably of the same age, sex, and race (Hartl et al., 2015), and if you marry, you and your spouse are likely to have similar levels of education (Jonason & Antoon, 2019). People are even more likely than you’d expect to marry someone whose last name begins with the same last letter as their own (Jones et al., 2004)! Then there’s similarity in attitudes and values. There is a straightforward link between the proportion of the attitudes two people think they share and their attraction to each other: the more agreement, the more liking. Take note of the pattern in Figure 3.6. When people were told that they agreed on a lot of issues, attraction didn’t level off after a certain amount of similarity was reached, and there was no danger in having “too much in common.” Instead, where attitudes are concerned, the more similar two people are, the more they like each other (Sprecher, 2019). For whom did you vote in the last elec- tion? It’s likely you and your sweetheart cast similar ballots (and if you didn’t, there may be trouble ahead [Afifi et al., 2020]). Finally, to a lesser degree, partners may have similar personalities—but this pattern is a bit complex. When it comes to me being happy with you, it’s not vital that you and I have similar personalities (van Scheppingen et al., 2019); what matters is that you are agreeable, conscientious, and emotionally stable, and so are easy and pleasant to live with (Watson et al., 2014). My contentment will have more to do with your desirable qualities than with how similar we are (Weidmann et al., 2017). Of course, if I have a congenial, dependable personality, too, then you’re also happy, and our personalities are fairly similar—but it’s not our similarity per se that’s promoting our Attraction is influenced by similarity. People who are similar in background characteristics, physical attractiveness, FIGURE 3.6. The relationship between attraction and attitudes are more likely to be and perceived similarity in attitudes. attracted to each other than are those People expected to like a stranger when they who are dissimilar. were led to believe that the stranger shared their attitudes. 12.00 11.00 10.00 Attraction 9.00 8.00 7.00 6.00.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.90 1.00 Proportion of Similar Attitudes Source: Adapted from Byrne, D., & Nelson, D. (1965). “Attraction as a linear function of proportion of positive reinforcements,” Journal of Personality and Social Psy- Asia Images Group/Getty Images chology, 1, 659–663. satisfaction (Wood & Furr, 2016). The key here is that the link between similarity and attraction is stronger for attitudes than for personalities (Watson et al., 2004), and it actually varies some from country to country. In China, a country that values group harmony, for instance, the personalities of husbands and wives are typically more similar than those of spouses in the United States, a country that celebrates individu- alism (Chen et al., 2009). (And that sounds like a point to ponder.) In any case, people with similar styles and traits A Point to Ponder usually get along well when they encounter each other Husbands and wives in (Sharabi & Caughlin, 2017); for instance, the first meet- China typically have person- ings of two gregarious people or two shy people are alities that are more similar typically more enjoyable than the first conversation of to one another than spouses a gregarious person and a shy person is (Cuperman & in the United States do. Ickes, 2009). People even like others better, when they When it comes to marital satisfaction, is that a good or meet online, if they have similar avatars (van der Land a bad thing? et al., 2015). Do Opposites Attract? So, in general, the more two people have in common, the more they like each other. “Relationships are formed, in part, by the selection of partners who share important attitudes, values, prejudices, activities, and some personality traits” (Bahns et al., 2017, p. 341).8 When others share our views, we assume that they like us, we trust them (Singh et al., 2017), and we enjoy time with them more than is the case when we disagree (Hampton et al., 2019). Why, then, do some of us believe that “opposites attract”? Are people really more attracted to each other when they are less alike? The simple answer is no. There are some nuances at work, but people are not routinely more content with dissimilar, rather than similar, partners. However, there are several important subtleties in the way similarity operates that may mislead people into think- ing that opposites do sometimes attract. How Much Do We Think We Have in Common? Perceived Similarity Matters The first subtlety is that our perceptions of how much we have in common affect our attraction to each more than our actual similarity does. For instance, 4 minutes after people have met in a speed-dating study, their interest in each other has little to do with how much they really have in common; instead, to the extent their liking for each other is influenced by their personalities and interests, it depends on how similar they think they are (Tidwell et al., 2013). And perceived similarity remains important even if a relationship develops and the partners come to know each other better. After years of friendship—or marriage!—partners still routinely think that they have more in common with each other than they really do (Goel et al., 2010). They overestimate the similarities they share (de Jong & Reis, 2014)—and discovering how wrong they are (if they ever do) 8 I added the italics to this quote.  Interethnic Relationships Most of our intimate relationships are likely cultural groups: Compared to their peers, to be with others of the same race. Neverthe- they’ve had closer contact with other ethnici- less, marriages between spouses from differ- ties (Skinner & Rae, 2019) and they’re more ent ethnic groups are occurring at a record accepting of other cultures (Brooks & pace in the United States, with 17 percent of Neville, 2017). They also tend to live in areas newlyweds marrying someone of a different where ­potential partners of the same race are race (Geiger & Livingston, 2019). Those relatively scarce (Choi & Tienda, 2017). In couples raise an interesting question: If simi- general, however, inter­ethnic partners are larity attracts, what’s going on? The answer is just as satisfied as other couples (Troy et al., actually straightforward: nothing special. If 2006) and despite some lingering disap- you ignore the fact of their dissimilar ethnic- proval from others (Skinner & Rae, 2019), ity, interethnic couples appear to be influ- they have the same chances for marital suc- enced by the same motives that guide cess as their peers (Zhang & Van Hook, everyone else. The partners tend to be similar 2009). Their relationships operate the same in age, education, and attractiveness, and way: Two people who ­consider each other to their relationships, like most, are based on be good-looking and smart (Wu et al., 2015)— common ­interests and personal compatibil- and who are more alike than different— ity (Brummett, 2017). A few things distin- decide to stay together because they’re happy guish people who date partners from other and they’ve fallen in love. can take some time. Meanwhile, interested onlookers—friends, family, co-workers—may correctly observe that the partners are two very different people and infer, therefore, that opposites must attract. No, the partners aren’t together because their differences are desirable, they’re together because they think they’re not very different, and they’re wrong (Sprecher, 2014). Discovering Dissimilarities Can Take Time If we like others when we meet them (perhaps simply because they’re good-looking), we tend to expect (or is it hope?) that they have attitudes and values that are similar to our own (Rodrigues et al., 2017)—and of course, sometimes we’re mistaken. If we get to know them better, the interests and attitudes we actually share will become influential (Luo, 2009), but it may take a while for us to figure that out. A process like this was evident in Newcomb’s (1961) study of developing friend- ships among men sharing a boardinghouse. Soon after they met, the men liked best the housemates who they thought were most like them; thus, at first, their friendships were influenced mostly by perceived similarity. As the semester progressed, however, the actual similarities the men shared with each other played a larger and larger role in their friendships. When they got to know each other better, the men clearly pre- ferred those who really were similar to them, although this was not always the case at first. Then, even when we do know our partners well, there may still be surprises ahead. According to Bernard Murstein’s (1987) stimulus-value-role theory, we gain three  Role Importance of Information Value Stimulus Increasing Intimacy FIGURE 3.7. Three different phases of relationship development. Murstein’s (1987) stimulus-value-role theory suggests that developing relationships are influ- enced by three different types of information that differ in importance and influence as time goes by and the partners learn more about each other. Source: Data from Murstein, B. I. (1987). “A clarification and extension of the SVR theory of dyadic pairing,” Journal of Marriage and the Family, 49, 929–933. different broad types of information about our partners as a new relationship develops. When we first meet, our attraction to each other is primarily based on “stimulus” information involving obvious attributes such as age, sex, and, of course, looks. There- after, during the “value” stage, attraction depends on similarity in attitudes and beliefs as we learn whether we like the same kinds of pizzas, movies, and politics (see Figure 3.7). Only later does “role” compatibility become important, when we finally find out if we agree on the basics of parenting, careers, and housecleaning, among other life tasks. The point is that partners can be perfectly content with each other’s tastes in music (for instance) without ever realizing that they disagree fundamentally about where they’d like to live and how many kids—if any!—they want to have. Impor- tant dissimilarities ­sometimes become apparent only after couples have married— and such spouses may stay together despite their differences, but it’s not because opposites attract. The influence of time and experience is also apparent in fatal attractions (Felmlee, 2001). These occur when a quality that initially attracts one person to another gradu- ally becomes one of the most obnoxious, irritating things about that partner. For instance, partners who initially seem spontaneous and fun may later seem irresponsible and foolish, and those who appear strong and assertive may later seem domineering. Those who initially welcome a partner’s high level of attention and devotion may come to resent such behavior when it later seems too possessive. In such cases, the annoying trait is no secret, but people fail to appreciate how their judgments of it will change with time. Importantly, such fatal qualities are often different from one’s own; they may seem admirable and desirable at first—so that a spendthrift who’s always broke may initially admire a tightwad who counts every penny—but over time people realize that such opposites aren’t attractive (Rick et al., 2011). You May Be the Person I Want to Become Along those lines, people also admire those who possess skills and talents they wish they had. Another nuance in the operation of similarity lies in our attraction to others who are similar to our ideal selves, that is, who exhibit desirable qualities that we want to, but do not yet, possess (Strauss et al., 2012). This tendency is complex because it’s threatening and unpleasant when people surpass us and make us look bad by comparison (Herbst et al., 2003). However, if others are only a little better than us—so that they offer us implicit encouragement instead of humiliation—we may be attracted to those who are actually a little different from us (for now) (Cemalcilar et al., 2018). Let’s not overstate this subtlety. The most appealing partners of all are those who are similar to us in most dimensions but who fit our attainable ideals in others (Liu et al., 2018). Such people are hardly our “opposites.” But as long as the differences are not too great, we may prefer a partner who is someone we’d like to become to one who more closely resembles who we really are now. Dissimilarity May Decrease over Time Moreover, relationships can change people (Denzinger et al., 2018). Their per- sonalities don’t change much (Rammstedt et al., 2013), but as time goes by, the members of a couple often come to share more similar attitudes (Gonzaga et al., 2010). Some of this decrease in dissimilarity probably occurs automatically as a cou- ple shares compelling experiences, but some of it also occurs as the partners con- sciously seek compatibility and contentment (Luo, 2017). Thus, opposites don’t attract, but some opposites may gradually fade if a couple stays together for some other reason. Some Types of Similarity Are More Important than Others A further nuance is that some similarities may be quite influential, whereas other similarities—or opposites—may be rather innocuous. In particular, it’s especially reward- ing to have someone agree with us on issues that are very important to us (Bahns et al., 2017). Religion is often one such issue; shared beliefs are quite satisfying to a couple when they are highly religious, but they have little effect—and even disagreement is immaterial—when neither of the partners actively observes a faith (Lutz-Zois et al., 2006). Thus, opposites don’t attract, but they also may not matter if no one attaches much importance to them. Housework and gender roles appear to be among the similarities that do routinely matter. Cohabiting couples who disagree with each other about the division of household labor are more likely to break up than are those who share similar views (Hohmann- Marriott, 2006), and spouses who share such work are more satisfied than those who divide it unequally (Amato et al., 2007). And husbands and wives who are more similar in their gender roles—not less, as a traditional outlook would lead us to expect—are more happily married than those who differ from one another in their styles and skills (Gaunt, 2006). In particular, compared to spouses who are more alike, macho husbands and feminine wives (who clearly have different gender roles) feel less understood, share less companionship, and experience less love and contentment in their marriages as time goes by (Helms et al., 2006). Matching Is a Broad Process Another source of confusion arises when people pair off with others who are obviously very different but who nevertheless have a similar mate value—as may be the case when an old rich guy marries a lovely young woman. In such cases, the partners are clearly dissimilar, and “opposites” may seem to attract. That’s a rather unsophisti- cated view, however, because such partners are really just matching in a broader sense, trading looks for money and vice versa. They may have different assets, but such partners are still seeking good matches with others who have similar standing overall in the interpersonal marketplace. People usually end up with others of similar mate value, but the specific rewards they offer each other may be quite different. This sort of thing goes on all the time. A study of 6,485 users of an online dating service found that very homely—okay, ugly—men (those in the bottom 10 percent of attractiveness among men) needed $186,000 more in annual income in order to attract as much attention from women as fine-looking fellows (i.e., those in the top 10 percent); nevertheless, if they did make that much more money, ugly guys received just as many inquiries as handsome men did (Hitsch et al., 2010). Indeed, we tend to assume, don’t we, that when a lovely woman is paired with a homely fellow, he must be pretty well off or fairly famous (Hoplock et al., 2019). It’s not very romantic, but fame, wealth, health, talent, and looks all appear to be commodities that people use to attract more desirable partners than they might other- wise entice. If we think of matching as a broad process that involves both physical attractiveness and various other assets and traits, it’s evident that people usually pair off with others of similar status, and like attracts like. In fact, trade-offs like these are central ideas in evolutionary psychology. Because men are more likely to reproduce successfully when they mate with healthy, fertile women, sexual selection has presumably promoted men’s interest in youthful and beau- tiful partners (Buss, 2019). Youth is important because women are no longer fertile after they reach menopause in middle age. Beauty is meaningful because, as we’ve already seen, it is roughly correlated with some aspects of good health (Van Dongen & Gangestad, 2011). Thus, men especially value good looks in women (see Figure 3.5), and, as they age, they seek partners who are increasingly younger than they are (Conroy-Beam & Buss, 2019). They pay more for prostitutes in their teens and early 20s than for women in their 30s (Dunn, 2018), and if they purchase a bride (as may hap- pen in South Korea), they never buy one older than 25 even when they’re in their 40s or 50s (Sohn, 2017). On dating sites, younger women get many more messages from men than older women do (see Figure 3.8), and around the world, men who marry in their twenties pair off with women who are 2 years younger than they are, on average, but men who marry in their fifties seek wives who are 15 years younger than they (Dunn et al., 2010). Women don’t need to be as concerned about their partners’ youth because men normally retain their capacity for reproduction as long as they live. Instead, given their vastly greater parental investment in their offspring,9 women should seek mates with resources who can provide for the well-being of mother and child during the long 9 If a reminder regarding parental investment will be welcome, look back at page 38.  7 Men Women 6 Desirability Rank 5 4 3 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 Age FIGURE 3.8. Age and desirability online. The figure compares the number of messages received, on average, by men and women who were seeking partners of the other sex on a “popular, free online dating service” in New York, Boston, Chicago, and Seattle. Users with higher rankings were more popular than those with lower ranks. Men reached their peak desirability to women at age 50, but women were most sought-after by men when they were 18 years old—and their comparative desirability declined sharply thereafter. Source: Data from Bruch, E. E., & Newman, M. E. J. (2018). “Aspirational pursuit of mates in online dating markets,” Science Advances, 4(8), eaap 9815. period of pregnancy and nursing. In fact, as Figure 3.9 illustrates, around the world, women do care more about their partners’ financial prospects than men do (Walter et al., 2020), and men who flash their cash attract more sexual partners than stingy men do (Sundie et al., 2011). When he asks a woman who is walking by, for instance, a guy climbing out of a luxury car (an Audi A5) is more likely to get her phone number than he would be if he had a cheap car (a Renault Mégane) (Guéguen & Lamy, 2012). Furthermore, women’s preferences for the age of their mates do not change much as they age (Conroy-Beam & Buss, 2019); women don’t start seeking younger men as mates until they (the women) are around 75 years old (Alterovitz & Mendelsohn, 2011). Thus, matching based on the exchange of feminine youth and beauty for masculine status and resources is commonplace (Zhang et al., 2019). Sure enough, when they advertise for partners on Craig’s List, women get the most interest from men when they say they’re “lovely, slim, and very attractive,” but men get the most interest from women when they describe themselves as “financially independent and successful” (Strassberg & English, 2015). In addition, a high salary improves a woman’s impression of an ugly man to a much greater extent than it affects a man’s (lack of) interest in an ugly woman (Wang et al., 2018).10 Still, is all this the result of evolutionary pres- sures? Advocates of a cultural perspective argue that women pursue desirable resources through their partners because they are so often denied direct access to political and 10 Here’s joke that acknowledges this pattern: “If I had a dollar for every girl that found me unattractive, they’d eventually find me attractive” (Anand, 2017).  Indispensable 3.0 Men Women 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0.5 Unimportant 0 Japan Zambia Yugoslavia Australia USA FIGURE 3.9. Desire for good financial prospects in a romantic partner. Around the world, women care more about a partner’s financial prospects than men do. Source: Data from Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). “Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating,” Psychological Review, 100, 204–232. economic power of their own (Wood & Eagly, 2007). Indeed, in the United States—a culture in which smart women have access to career opportunities—the more intelligent a woman is, the lower her desire is for wealth and status in a romantic partner (Stanik & Ellsworth, 2010). Nevertheless, around the world, even in countries that support and promote female equality, women care a lot more about a mate’s financial prospects, on average, than men do (Zhang et al., 2019). So, the origins of the feminine-beauty-for-masculine-money trade-off remain uncer- tain. But in any case, the bottom line here is that matching is a broad process that involves multiple resources and traits. When “opposites” seem to attract, people may be trading one asset for another in order to obtain partners of similar social status, and it’s their similar mate values, not any desired differences, that make them attractive to each other. One Way “Opposites” May Attract Now and Then: Complementarity Finally, there are times when different types of behavior can fit together well. In keep- ing with the principle of instrumentality (back on page 88), we like responses from others that help us reach our goals (Fitzsimons et al., 2015). When two partners have different skills, each is usually happy to allow the other to take the lead on those tasks at which the other is more talented (Beach et al., 2001). Such behavior is said to complement our own, and complementarity—reactions that provide a good fit to our own—can be attractive. Most complementary behaviors are actually similar actions; people who are warm and agreeable, for instance, are happiest when they are met with warmth and good humor in return. However, some profitable forms of complementarity involve different behaviors from two partners. Consider a couple’s sexual interactions; if one of them enjoys receiving oral sex, their satisfaction is likely to be higher when the other enjoys giving it (de Jong & Reis, 2014). Divisions of labor that suit our talents in pursuit of shared goals are often advantageous: If I’m a dreamer who comes up with great ideas and you’re a details person who’s a careful planner, we can enjoy some terrific vacations if we like to go to the same places (Bohns et al., 2013). And when we really want something, it’s nice when our partners let us have our way. When we feel very sure of ourselves, we want our partners to heed our advice; on other occasions, when we need help and advice, we want our partners to give it (Markey et al., 2010). Do these examples of rewarding complementarity sound like “opposites attract” to you? I hope not. In general, patterns of behavior in others that are genuinely oppo- site to our own—such as cool aloofness instead of our warmth, or submissive passivity instead of our assertion and self-confidence—are annoying and frustrating (Hopwood et al., 2011). Dominant people like to get their way, but they like other assertive folks more than they like those who are chronically servile (Markey & Markey, 2007)—and in any case, there’s not a lot of one spouse bossing the other around in happy mar- riages (Cundiff et al., 2015). And trust me, if you’re an impulsive person who tends to act without thinking, you do not want to pair off with a partner who is cautious and planful (why? to keep you out of trouble?); you’ll be happier if you partner with some- one who is just as impetuous and reckless as you are (Derrick et al., 2016). The bottom line appears to be that we like partners who entertain and support us but we don’t like partners who frustrate or impede us, and a partnership is fulfilling when we desire the same goals and are able to work together to ­successfully achieve them. So, the blend of similarities and differences that form an optimal mix may vary from couple to couple (Baxter & West, 2003). Personal growth and novel activities are also ­rewarding, so we like people with ­interests that are different from (but not incom- patible with) our own when they introduce us to things we’ll both like (Aron et al., 2006). The important thing to remember is that similar partners are more likely than others to share our goals (Gray & Coons, 2017), so they supply us what we want more often than anyone else can. Add it all up, and opposites may sometimes seem to attract, but birds of a feather are more likely to flock together. Similarity is usually rewarding; opposition is not. SO, WHAT DO MEN AND WOMEN WANT? We are nearly at the end of our survey of major influences on attraction, but one important point remains. As we’ve seen, men and women differ in the value they place on a partner’s physical attractiveness and income (Walter et al., 2020). I don’t want those results to leave you with the wrong impression, however, because despite those differences, men and women generally seek the same qualities in their relational part- ners (Thomas et al., 2020). Let’s look more closely at what men and women want. Around the world, there are three themes in the criteria with which people evalu- ate potential mates (Lam et al., 2016). If we had our way, almost all of us would have partners who offered warmth and loyalty, being trustworthy, kind, supportive, and understanding; attractiveness and vitality, being good-looking, sexy, and outgoing; and status and resources, being financially secure and living well. All of these characteristics are desirable, but they’re not of equal importance, and their prominence depends on whether we’re seeking a relatively casual, short-term fling or a more committed long-term romance.  Men and women have the same (relatively low) standards when they’re pursuing short-term flings (Eastwick et al., 2014). They both want a casual lover to be good- looking (Perilloux & Cloud, 2019), and both sexes are less picky when they’re evaluating partners for short-term liaisons than for lasting unions (Fletcher et al., 2004). For instance, both sexes will accept lower intelligence, warmth, and earning potential in a lover with whom they have a casual fling than they would require in a spouse (Buunk et al., 2002). In particular, when they are contemplating short-term affairs, women will accept men who aren’t especially kind, dependable, or understanding as long as their lovers are mu